People v. Aldridge

RICHARDSON, J. *

I respectfully dissent.

In my view, the challenged detention and search were valid and the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained in that search.

Agreeing as I do with the analysis contained in Presiding Justice Cologne’s opinion for the Court of Appeal in this case, I incorporate and adopt pertinent parts of that opinion as follows:

“Aldridge asserts the three factors of location in an area of continuous drug transactions, nighttime, and apparent desire to avoid contact with police are insufficient to permit the conclusion the officer’s suspicions were objectively reasonable .... He relies on eliminating the importance of these factors much as was done in People v. Bower [1979] 24 Cal.3d 638 , at pages 645 to 646 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 856 , 597 P.2d 115 ], which discussed the ‘nighttime factor’ and ‘high crime’ area assertion .... Since Aldridge’s view of the circumstances shown to be involved here is too narrow, it is unpersuasive.

“There is not present here a vaguely defined high crime area as was the case in Bower . Rather, we consider a specific lot next to Dr. J’s Liquor Store where arrests in the hundreds for drugs or weapons were made by the very officer involved for over two years, where he was attacked in a near riot situation connected with a drug offense the night before and where other officers had arrested three persons earlier this very night. These specific facts connected with this specific location take the case out of the category of mere ‘high crime’ area subject to the criticisms leveled in Bower . The important factor here is that the lot is the focal point of criminal activity. It is a place established as a central point for narcotics trafficking and riots.

*482 “The nighttime or darkness factor is dissimilar from that involved in Bower as well. The nighttime, darkness factor here is compounded by the presence of a large crowd of people present in the dimly lit area. This combined factor of darkness and presence of a large group there, in light of Officer Baldenegro’s long and recent experience with drug oifenses at Dr. J’s lot and the riot there only the night before, could reasonably lead to the belief ‘(1) some activity out of the ordinary had taken place or was occurring or about to occur,’ and ‘(2) the activity was related to crime’ (People v. Bower, supra, 24 Cal.3d 638, 644 ).

“When the four persons ran from the crowd in this dark location upon seeing the police car enter the lot, again considering the officer’s experience, it was reasonable to believe the runners were ‘(3) . . . connected with the activity’ ( Bower, supra, 24 Cal.3d 638, 644 ). In People v. Martin [1956] 46 Cal.2d 106 [ 293 P.2d 52 ], patrol officers turned their spotlight on a car parked on a lovers’ lane at night and saw two men inside. This, coupled with the man’s flight, provided reasonable cause to investigate. The court said (at p. 108), ‘their sudden flight from the officers and the inference that could reasonably be drawn therefrom that they were guilty of some crime [citation], left no doubt not only as to the reasonableness but as to the necessity for an investigation.’ (See also People v. Robinson [1976] 58 Cal.App.3d 363, 366 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 915 ]; People v. Rosenfeld [1971] 16 Cal.App.3d 619, 621-623 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 380 ].)

“The detention here was reasonable.

“As to the pat-down by Officer Carlisle, there is no question it was reasonable based on the specific facts and circumstances. Alone with the four wandering, circling individuals, one of whom had produced a large knife and all of whom oddly fidgeted in their self-searches for weapons, the frightened Carlisle acted properly for his own protection in conducting the pat-down (Terry v. Ohio [1968] 392 U.S. 1, 27, 30 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 889 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 1884-1885 ]).”

I would affirm the judgment.

Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.